n8n_list_workflows_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a minimal field set and uses 90% fewer tokens than the full list tool. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining what data the agent will receive and why this variant is cheaper, though it does not discuss pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output fields, the second gives a concrete recommendation with quantified benefit, and the third routes to the full-detail alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the most important selection information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with read-only behavior and a fully documented schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, why this variant is preferred, and how to get full workflow details. No critical usage or selection context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the six optional parameters is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('List workflows') and resource, then precisely defines the scope as 'minimal data' with the exact returned fields (id, name, active, tags, updatedAt only). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling n8n_list_workflows by emphasizing the reduced data payload, so an agent can clearly differentiate the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly recommends this tool for 'browsing and listing' and justifies it with the token-efficiency benefit versus n8n_list_workflows. It also names n8n_get_workflow as the appropriate alternative when full details of a specific workflow are needed, giving clear selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.